Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Just bear in mind that two-thirds of the people here rated it above average or outstanding.

Yes. That's very telling, isn't it?

Not really, no. Look through the history of those threads, you'll find that there's a certain subset of people here that think EVERY Star Trek book is outstanding, and their definition of 'poor' is voting above average.

Not just in the Lit forum, happens in most of the tv/movie threads as well. Everything's awesome or sucks, not much room for something just being ok...

Given how review threads usually go in here, the general tone and comments in this thread are a pretty good indication that it was not as well received as some of the previous books. Can draw your own conclusions about the worth of the voting buttons from there, but if you consider that most threads only draw a few negative votes, 1/3rd negative still means something by that standard...

Given that Halliwell has made clear his dislike of this book I think his comment was more along the lines of the fan audience on here being happier to overlook its flaws than the general audience on Amazon who don't follow the book series to the same extent.

Personally as mentioned I'm not a big fan of the book but I don't think it's a disaster like the last two Titan books. The DS9 bits are mainly fine if a bit predictable.

Just bear in mind that two-thirds of the people here rated it above average or outstanding.

Yes. That's very telling, isn't it?

Not really, no. Look through the history of those threads, you'll find that there's a certain subset of people here that think EVERY Star Trek book is outstanding, and their definition of 'poor' is voting above average.

Unless the book is by Michael A Martin; it is ok to think his books are poorly written here. You are only allowed to say that DRG3 books did not work for you. Apparently it is not possible to disagree about the quality of an author's work.

To be clear, I would prefer that Martin never write Trek again but I would rather read another book by him than DRG3.

Not really, no. Look through the history of those threads, you'll find that there's a certain subset of people here that think EVERY Star Trek book is outstanding, and their definition of 'poor' is voting above average.

Not just in the Lit forum, happens in most of the tv/movie threads as well. Everything's awesome or sucks, not much room for something just being ok...

Given how review threads usually go in here, the general tone and comments in this thread are a pretty good indication that it was not as well received as some of the previous books. Can draw your own conclusions about the worth of the voting buttons from there, but if you consider that most threads only draw a few negative votes, 1/3rd negative still means something by that standard...

Given that Halliwell has made clear his dislike of this book I think his comment was more along the lines of the fan audience on here being happier to overlook its flaws than the general audience on Amazon who don't follow the book series to the same extent.

Personally as mentioned I'm not a big fan of the book but I don't think it's a disaster like the last two Titan books. The DS9 bits are mainly fine if a bit predictable.

Yep. That's exactly what I meant. And I agree with you. This book was better than the last two Titan books.

__________________"I excel at following the important ones." Admiral Kathryn Janeway answering Counselor Cambridge's questioning her whether she excels at following orders. Star Trek Voyager: Protectors by New York Times Bestselling authorKirsten "Mother F**ng" Beyer

Speaking of Rough Beasts, I had to go look it up, because it turns out, it was also entirely forgettable.

Rough Beasts was one of the worst books that I have ever read...I wish it were forgettable.

You'll just have to face it that it's down to taste. I thought Rough Beasts was great (as were its follow ups Plagues of Night and Raise The Dawn). Out of those first four Typhoon Pact novels I really didn't like Zero Sum Game and Seize The Fire. ZSG in particular seemed popular with other readers.

__________________
Soon oh soon the light, Pass within and soothe this endless night, And wait here for you, Our reason to be here...

I've actually liked DRG3's books, just felt like this one was a 'miss'. Best case, he sacrificed too much of HIS book to try and make later books in the series work better, and took one for the team.

Still poor writing/plotting to not have SOMETHING for this book to do, a reason to exist. You need to do something to move things along even at a smaller level, while contributing to the overall arc. otherwise, the editors would have been better suited just tacking an extra chapter to the front of book 2 with the condensed version, because there's no reason for book 1 to stand alone, or even exist. If there's only enough plot for 4 books, don't make it a 5 book series...

__________________
Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by man. ~Jack Handey
STO: @JScout33

Speaking of Rough Beasts, I had to go look it up, because it turns out, it was also entirely forgettable.

Rough Beasts was one of the worst books that I have ever read...I wish it were forgettable.

You'll just have to face it that it's down to taste. I thought Rough Beasts was great (as were its follow ups Plagues of Night and Raise The Dawn). Out of those first four Typhoon Pact novels I really didn't like Zero Sum Game and Seize The Fire. ZSG in particular seemed popular with other readers.

No doubt. I can't say that Rough Beast of Empire was bad, because I really don't remember it. After reading its description, I remember the main events, but that's all. I can't even say it was a bad book, because it apparently just leaked right out of my brain. RaD, in comparison, I shall remember.

I went back to take a look to see if I rated any of them, and it seems I forgot to rate Typhon Pact 1-4. That probably just means they were average reads. Plagues of Night, however, I gave just 2 stars and the review:

Disjointed. That's the best way to describe this book. It's as though half the book was meant to fill in the cracks of the other books in the series. Reminded me of the Appendices of The Lord of the Rings.

But remember, I try to review each book as its own entity. Filling in the cracks is fine, in a serial novel. Not so much in a full novel.

Raise the Dawn I apparently gave 3 stars. So, maybe DRGIII's style is poor enough that I consistently get hung up on it. Can't say I ever noticed until now. Until now, I've never really noticed who wrote which Trek novel.

I notice that people looking for character arcs and the like are looking in the DS9 part of the story. I think that part was setting up for the other 4 books. The Kira/Keev part is where the story of Revelation and Dust is, almost like Keev's story is Kira's "Far Beyond the Stars".

I notice that people looking for character arcs and the like are looking in the DS9 part of the story. I think that part was setting up for the other 4 books. The Kira/Keev part is where the story of Revelation and Dust is, almost like Keev's story is Kira's "Far Beyond the Stars".

So your argument would be that RaD was about Keev. I'm not saying I disagree with you, because that storyline was the only complete arc in the book, but I have to play devil's advocate here.

If RaD was about Keev, how did the other 3/4 of the novel advance the plot? I don't see that the rest of the book has anything to do with the Keev story. If that is the case, it makes the book even worse under the criteria of its critics, not better. The other portions of the book, having no bearing on the Keev plot, would best be used in the other novels of The Fall series in that case.

I notice that people looking for character arcs and the like are looking in the DS9 part of the story. I think that part was setting up for the other 4 books. The Kira/Keev part is where the story of Revelation and Dust is, almost like Keev's story is Kira's "Far Beyond the Stars".

So your argument would be that RaD was about Keev. I'm not saying I disagree with you, because that storyline was the only complete arc in the book, but I have to play devil's advocate here.

If RaD was about Keev, how did the other 3/4 of the novel advance the plot? I don't see that the rest of the book has anything to do with the Keev story. If that is the case, it makes the book even worse under the criteria of its critics, not better. The other portions of the book, having no bearing on the Keev plot, would best be used in the other novels of The Fall series in that case.

First, I'd say that the Kira/Keev part was more like 1/2 the novel than 1/4.

The other portions are setup for the rest of The Fall - new DS9, Bacco, where are the characters now. Their character arcs are more character "a"s right now. The "r" and the "c" come in the later books, so their arcs are over the 5-book miniseries. And not every single bit of story is about advancing the plot - not every B-story is incredibly important.

First, I'd say that the Kira/Keev part was more like 1/2 the novel than 1/4.

The other portions are setup for the rest of The Fall - new DS9, Bacco, where are the characters now. Their character arcs are more character "a"s right now. The "r" and the "c" come in the later books, so their arcs are over the 5-book miniseries

The reason character arcs were brought up originally is because a claim was made that this was a superb character study. The rebuttal, of course, was to ask how it could be a superb character study if there were no character arcs. You can see that there is no arc here.

The next question was to the story arc. It was argued that this book needn't have a complete story arc of its own, because it was some sort of serial novel. This was proven wrong by the author's own words in the back-matter. DRGIII said that it is a full novel in a series of full novels, not a serial novel. The only way you can get away with not having a full plot and character arcs of your own is to have a serial novel, because it is then explicit that the full novel has been broken into pieces.

And not every single bit of story is about advancing the plot - not every B-story is incredibly important.

Not every portion of a book has to service the same plot. It would, however, be nice if most of this book serviced any plot. Now, before you go jumping down my throat for that statement, just think about my previous argument. The novel was missing its story arc. Events occurred, but serviced no plot. They were simply there, taking up pages.

From a literary perspective, this novel was poorly done. Not only did it not have a complete plot, it did not have character arcs, and it set up a hook that it did not payoff on.

See, the thing is, I like the authors other books. I love the literary ds9 for the most part. But this is half a book. My wife read a few typhon pact books and Destiny, and was going to use this as a jumping on point to become a regular reader....she isn't going to now. Stories like 'beyond the stars' work on tv because you can see familiar faces playing the prophet echo characters. They do not work in books because you can't. 'Our man Bashir' would be an awful book, a bond pastiche, but it works on tv because it's funny to see our familiar faces. The only equivalent in book form is to work within the setting of literature (something doctor who did well in its novels...the adventuress of Henrietta street for example) and tell the story that way. I am not sure that would work in trek literature except in the way some of the typhon pact books worked like the tng episode 'first contact' told from the alien perspective, or the...never-ending sacrifice I think it was...where we are in first person perspective with a character who is not one of our regulars. As it stands we get a clumsy underground railroad parable, starring not-kira, which whilst fitting with some of ds9s subjects, just doesn't gel with the story told back on the station. All for the orb fake out at the end....guess he's gonna go work in sector General, and an up replacing Bashir when he leave to go be with Dax after it turns out Sarina is section 31 (that's my conjecture, but am using it her to illustrate how much this book feels like massive set ups fir further in....I might be wrong, probably am, I hope I am not wrong because I pretty much don't like Sarina)

Can certainly use this as a jumping in point, I'd just have her wait until a couple more books in the series come out.

It's not a 'bad, put it down in disgust' kinda book. And when you can keep reading the next one, may even be ok in that light. It's just bad (or really, just pointless) when viewed alone. Tough to describe that way, but that's the closest I can come. There's just really no reason it needed to be written that couldn't have been covered by making book 2 twenty pages longer. Or making all 4 books a little longer if you want to wedge a little more into the new first book.

__________________
Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by man. ~Jack Handey
STO: @JScout33